24 August 2005

Wednesday Air America Scandal News

--- A confusedDenver Post columnist thinks Air America has just celebrated its first anniversary. No, that's Denver's KKZN, the network's been broadcasting about six months longer.

Dick Kreck's column then goes on to happily dismiss our research on Air America's scandal, it's not clear if he bothered to read any of it. He sure is happy to pass it all off on the right wing, though.

--- San Antonio News-Express columnist Jonathon Gurwitz thinks it's mighty strange Air America's descent is flying under the media's radar. Looks like they're paying attention in San Antonio, what's the problem in Denver?

What I find laughable is Dick Kreck's citing the Daily Kos as a news source (okay, a source of information) but Michelle is dismissed as "shrill". "Oh kettle, thou art black!", exclaimeth the pot.

I guess it's because Kreck recognizes a idealogically-driven smear job when he sees one. Malkin and Maloney's attempts to push this "story" into the MSM are becoming increasingly shrill. But the MSM is not going to touch this slime. Why? Kreck tells us.

"Maybe it's not a story because it's not a story. Piquant, the parent of Air America, responded in several statements that the disagreement over some $800,000 in loans is between Cohen and the boys and girls club, not AA."

So we're simply to take Piquant's word for it that Piquant wasn't involved -- even though Piquant has agreed to repay funds? No further investigation required?

Healthy skeptism. Good. Now how about applying some of that skeptism to what Maloney and Malkin are pushing? Maloney and Malkin are pushing speculation and innuendo for which there is no evidence and no basis in fact. The burden to prove these tissue-thin allegations is upon Maloney and Malkin. Where is their proof? Where is their evidence?

But perhaps I expect too much. Maloney's blog isn't about the truth or even arguments based in fact or evidence. No, it's an ideological campaign to spread lies and innuendo. Let's at least be honest about that.

Hilarious to see someone from the left talk about "facts" when he himself isn't interested in the actual facts of the matter.

If the allegations are "tissue thin" (what does that mean anyway, there was no 875,000 "loan"?) why is Spitzer investigating?

You realize that statement you are touting is highly misleading, if not false, right?If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?

What will NOT happen is that the interesting disbursement of federal grant money will not be swept under the rug unexamined.

Now why would you have a problem with that?

And about Ann Coulter - she needs to also mention that the citizens of Cambridge, in addition to surrendering, will also take up arms on the terrorists' behalf against Amerika, to expiate their guilt (which perhaps someday they will be able to pin down - it's just about SO much!)

NtvAmron said: I guess I am getting old too. That excerpt quote from Ann makes perfect sense and seems perfectly logical to me.

You can’t be serious!!!

I read the following somewhere that sums it up perfectly: “That's what Ann Coulter thinks of the cops and firemen of New York City, and of the family members of those lost on 9/11, and of the everyday people who refused to let the attacks keep them from going on with their lives.”

“Never mind the courage and character New Yorkers have demonstrated in the face of terror. People in the city tend to vote for people other than the ones Coulter supports, so she calls them cowards.”

I don’t know where you were on 9/11 but the people of America and PARTICULARLY NEW YORK did not SURRENDER.

Never give in. Never surrender. You go, Brian, you're making them squirm!

Continue twisting the knife until the sh!t for brains NYT and WaPo start to do their job and expose these weasles at AAR. They're not journalists at those papers, they're godawful propagandists. But whip them hard enough and once in a while they do their job.

Ann Coulter was making a joke for crying out loud! Although explaining a joke is the best way to ruin it, here goes:

At liberal rallies you are much more likely to hear things like, "Violence never solves anything", "Give peace a chance", "Free Mumia", "Save the Whales", yada yada.

Conservatives might be accused of many things but responding to violence (9/11) with cries for peace isn't one of them.

That's why it's funny. If you had a sense of humor you'd realize that. Of course it has nothing to do with the firefighters and policemen who lost their lives - those guys and gals are on the front line.

Some would say they are the reason liberals can be so deluded into thinking that humans are naturally peaceful people.

I have over 3000 reasons I don’t think that’s FUNNY. Plus add another almost 1900 in Iraq and maybe, just maybe you’ll understand why it isn’t funny.

Did you lose anyone on 9/11 or in Iraq? Do you even know of anyone that’s in Iraq. Maybe you should talk to Cindy Sheehan. . . the president won’t.

You want to hear something funny see the GIANT LEAP in miles per gallon for trucks and SUV’s that this administration is putting forward. Which by the way will still be under what Henry Ford’s cars were doing 100 years ago.

That’s like JFK saying we will land a man on the moon in 10 years with a BB gun.

Finally with the president signing the Energy bill a week or so ago the gas companies got a $9 billion Christmas bonus. Now that’s funny.

But your president was too busy getting campaign contributions from the Chinese Communists.

BTW, must have missed when your president withdrew all the troops from Kosovo.

Pat Robertson: even a blind pig gets a acorn. Hugo Chaves is playing footsie with the Chi-Comms, North Korea, and Cuba. His "election" was stolen, Chicago style. He is exporting terror throughout South America. Haven't you noticed this, or have you been too busy at all those Moron.com meetings.

Hilarious to see someone from the left talk about "facts" when he himself isn't interested in the actual facts of the matter.

Hey wait there Ace. First of all, what makes you think I'm from the left. Oh, I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you or Maloney must be from the left. I guess your too simple to preceive anything other than a black and white world. Facts? Oh yeah. I'm really interested in facts. It's the lack of facts to support Maloney's smears that really interest me, Ace.

If the allegations are "tissue thin" (what does that mean anyway, there was no 875,000 "loan"?) why is Spitzer investigating?

I guess it was too much to expect you to understand a simple metaphor. So let me use your standard on another case - why is Fitzgerald investigating Rove and Libby? You know what? Screw waiting for the outcome of the investigation. I'll just assume they're guilty. And you know what else? I know Bush and Cheney aren't part of this investigation but I'll declare them guilty too.

You realize that statement you are touting is highly misleading, if not false, right?

How so? Which statement was false or misleading?

If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?

You don't get it, do you? An investigation is under way. Yet you and Maloney proclaim everyone to be guilty before the outcome of that investigation is known.

But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process (let's hope you don't end up in a court that applies your standard). You and Maloney are only interested in smearing AAR and Franken.

"Conservatives might be accused of many things but responding to violence (9/11) with cries for peace isn't one of them."

So, so true. Conservatives first cowered in the corner clasping a role of duct tape and then began blindly striking out at imagined threats increasing our loses (to date) by 2/3rds not to mention destroying our economy and international reputation. So glad THEY, and not wimpy libs, were in charge. We might have had, brace yourself, peace. Ewwwww, icky.

BTW, libs are well aware that many humans don't want peace -- you all are 'Exhibit A', after all. We are not blind to the vile nature of your philosophy. We just believe there is another way.

PhilM, well to answer your question, Rove isn't being investigated.So maybe you should get your facts straight, as you seem to talk endlessly about "facts" and yet have none.

Further, I find it highly troubling that a private company would take a "loan" from a non-profit charitable organization, don't you?If that is "guilt" then so be it. But that isn't in question. And neither is the fact that it really isn't a new company (Sheldon Drobny, his wife Anita, Evan Cohen, Rex Sorenson, and Cohen's college classmate David Goodfriend formed Progress Media. In June 2004, the investors, including Highland Park couple Sheldon and Anita Drobny and Air America Chief Executive Doug Kreeger, formed a new corporation, Piquant LLC. The Drobnys and other investors forced Cohen and Sorenson to give up their voting stock and depart.Jon Sinton remains with the company as president of programming; Doug Kreeger who was CEO of Progress, remains with the company as an investor.)

To say "tissue thin" twists the whole thing.I'm asking you point blank (and the silly Mick), what is "tissue thin" about this? Did the loan not happen? Is it not wrong for a private company to receive money that is earmarked for city grants?

The statement you are touting is obviously misleading as they have said publicly they "agreed to pay the money months ago"If what your statement says is true, why would they?

Philm said: “But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process…”

I just received the below from The City of New York, Department of Investigation. And it’s funny they don’t mention Al Franken at all. I thought it was funny that Brian and Michelle in there Op-Ed piece the other day didn’t say BOO about Al Franken either.

I asked Brian why that was and I guess he was just to busy to answer. But man you look around this Blog and you would think they are hauling Al off right now.

You are DEAD ON PhilM they can’t handle the truth. This is all they got. . . there is an on going investigation.

NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

FACTS HOW IT MUST HURT!!!

Thank you for your interest in the Department of Investigation (DOI). DOI issued a press release about Gloria Wise in June 2005 and you can read it at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doi/pdf/pr42gwise_62405.pdf

In addition, DOI issued this statement on Friday, Aug 5: "DOI advised Air America to repay $875,000 into an escrow account from which no money can be disbursed without DOI's approval. Air America has not followed that recommendation. DOI was informed 8/5/05 that Air America's check for $50,000 was deposited into Air America's attorney's escrow account. No provision has been made for DOI to approve disbursements from that account."

GLORIA WISE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB and PATHWAYS FOR YOUTH BOYS & GIRLS CLUB DETERMINED TO BE NON RESPONSIBLE VENDORS

Today, it is announced that the Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD), has sent a letter to the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, Inc., and its affiliate, the Pathways for Youth Boys & Girls Club, stating that the Bronx-based not-for-profits have been determined to be Non-Responsible City contractors in connection with several recently submitted contract proposals. In these letters, DYCD said its respective Non-Responsibility determinations were based on an on-going investigation by the New York City Department of Investigation concerning allegations that, among other things, officials of Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club approved significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various City agencies.

The Department of Education (DOE) and DYCD will terminate all contracts with Gloria Wise and/or Pathways in the best interests of the City, as will the Department for the Aging (DFTA). The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is terminating a grant agreement with Pathways for Youth.

In anticipation of this action, the City agencies have worked diligently to ensure the continuation of these services and to transfer the programs to other service providers.

Anyone with questions about the services or programs provided by Gloria Wise or Pathways may call 311 for assistance. Get the worms out of the Big Apple. To report someone ripping off the City, call DOI at (212) 825-5959. 1

You know what? Screw waiting for the outcome of the investigation. I'll just assume they're guilty

PhilM, are you somehow suggesting you girls on the left haven't done that in the Rove affair? See, that's another thing that's funny about this, is this story broke during the second month you kids on the left were saying Rove "outed" a CIA agent and elected Democratic officals said he should resign, while the investigation is still underway.

But now its of course, "let the facts come in", which in fact you are not doing as you're quoting someone who is either misinformed or lying about said facts.

and then began blindly striking out at imagined threats increasing our loses (to date) by 2/3rds not to mention destroying our economy and international reputation. So glad THEY, and not wimpy libs, were in charge. We might have had, brace yourself, peace. Ewwwww, icky.

Peace with whom? Given that we were attacked repeatedly, with increasing frequency from 1993 to 2001, how were you silly liberals going to achieve "peace"? Or are you suggesting that was a peaceful time? (hint: who was President during 7 of those years).

Finally, the economy is 'destroyed'? Which economy? I'm assuming you're talking about another country than the US, because that adjective certainly doesn't apply to the US Economy.

If I was that ignorant, I really wouldn't be talking about political issues. You're embarassing.

The A$$ said: I'm asking you point blank (and the silly Mick), what is "tissue thin" about this? Did the loan not happen? Is it not wrong for a private company to receive money that is earmarked for city grants?

A$$ asked: Did the loan not happen? I don’t know. My guess is you don’t either.

My other GUESS is that if there was a loan it was with the PREVIOUS OWNER. What part of PREVIOUS OWNER don’t you get.

I’m going to s*a*y t*h*i*s s*l*o*w so that you might be able to understand and keep up. Using your logic. Someone buys a house that the PREVIOUS OWNER had killed his wife in. Applying your logic that means the person that bought the house is also guilty of murder. Remember now the key word PREVIOUS.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the laws of New York so I’ll pass on city gran money. You should too.

“Tissue thin” if you read one of my other posts you’ll come to understand what “tissue thin” is. If you can take the DOI statement as a GUILTY VERDICT well go for it. But it’s a stretch.

AAR has a "previous owner", like you have a "brain"Simply not true.The Drobny's are still principal investors; Air America CEO (under progress) Doug Kreeger; is still invested; Jon Sinton President of AAR under Progress, is still President & director of programming.Real "previous" huh?

I'm not talking about a "guilty verdict", as I think its damnable enough that Air America Radio was funded in part with NEW YORK CITY GRANT MONEY EARMARKED FOR CHILDREN AND ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

Which isn't in dispute.Does that make sense to you yet moron?

No shit you're not a lawyer, but GW Girls and Boys club was getting millions in city grants from NYC.So an organization funded by city grants takes its "money" (city grants) and gives it to Air America Radio.Not terribly complicated.Yes you're not a lawyer, but you are ignorant.

Are you denying that Rove is not a person of interest in Fitzgerald's investigation? That's either denial or delusion.

And you keep presuming I'm from the left just because I disagree with you and the rest of Maloney's ass-kissers. I'm a swinging voter who is fed up with this dishonesty that is being perpetuated by the likes of Maloney and Malkin.

I'm waiting for the outcome of the NY DOI. Why don't you? Just because some Democrats have called for Rove's resignation after a key witness has directly linked him to the WH leak? It seems you lost an opportunity to hold yourself to a higher standard than those Democrats. But now your just as tainted as them.

But of course, all of this is beside the point really, isn't it? Investigations, facts, evidence... you and Maloney aren't interested in those. You want AAR and Franken... bad. And you'll push any lie, any distortion, any slur to do it.

This is a story about Air America...the station that took money from poor minority children...that is not in dispute at all...really nothing is in dispute.

More willful dishonesty to toe Maloney's ideological line...

I suppose the NY DOI investigation can be called off now that none of Maloney's accusations are in dispute. And Franken and everyone else associated with AAR will be hauled away in 'cuffs tomorrow morning. I guess some constitutional rights would need to be overlooked. But the ideologues from the far right have never hesitated to slip past the Constitution when it suited them.

You know... one thing that interests me is how quiet Bill O'Reilly is on this issue. You would think that if this story had any legs and that the alleged wrong-doing by Franken and the rest of AAR were beyond dispute then BOR would be all over it given score he wants to settle with Franken. Perhaps Maloney's lick-spittles can answer why?

By PhilM, at 8:28 PM If its between Cohen and Gloria Wise, why did AAR's parent agree to pay the money back "months ago"?Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"?

You don't get it, do you? An investigation is under way. Yet you and Maloney proclaim everyone to be guilty before the outcome of that investigation is known.

But let's be honest. You're not interested arguments around due process (let's hope you don't end up in a court that applies your standard). You and Maloney are only interested in smearing AAR and Franken.___________________________________

LOL...See the question is asked--Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"? And what does PhilM do. Does he answer it or discuss it. No he sticks his head in the sand and then proclaims that we have to get the results of the investigation before we can discuss it.

It isn't even worth argueeing with them because they have their fingers stuck in their ears, singing La la la, I can't hear you. They will not conceed to even the most well known facts-ones that have been coroberated by several sources or those that are in a court filing.

Oh, and it looks very much like the new company was formed to escape from their debts. If so that's illegal. The courts will decide that one.

I'm not suggesting we'd be living in the Peaceful Kingdom, but we would not have unnecessary war as we do now.

"Finally, the economy is 'destroyed'?"

This 'great' economy we have now is an illusion. (I notice you didn't give us a dissertation on Now vs Then on the Economy. Heh.) The markets are going sideways, jobs are iffy, interest rates going up, oil out of sight, commodity wars with China are on the horizon while our deficit spending -- real numbers not the phony ones you dickwads want to believe -- continues unabated at incredible levels. The recent 'good' news, tax receipts, etc., were mostly due to one-time anomalies. There are very few positive long term indicators -- unless, of course, you are rich, in which case the current admin has got your back, like every good Christian should. Jesus always sucked up to the rich folks, after all.

"If I was that ignorant, I really wouldn't be talking about political issues. You're embarassing (sic)."

As to the issue at hand, i.e., Air America living off the flesh of street urchins:

That you guys feel this is the Issue of the Day after Day after Day, is so absurd. Does anyone believe that the current AAR mngt conspired to steal grant money from the Boys/Girls Club? As I understand it, the investigation is focused on the mngt of the B/G Club, which at best had very poor internal controls, and Cohen, who apparently was/is a crook. Has AAR slow paid into escrow? OMIGOD, maybe so, maybe not. Will civilization stand in the face of such villainy? The jury's out, but surely, given a generation or two, we will be able to get past this great sin.

Christ almighty, do you all have any sense of proportion? Surely there's SOMETHING more important to worry about. Of course, Franken was #37 on Bernie Goldberg's enemies list, so no doubt this is a high priority.

PhilM,Rove isn't a target of the investigation. His lawyer has said so publicly mulitple times, and he's testified as a witness in the Grand Jury proceeding. I know this is terribly complicated for you to understand, but people under investigation for felonies don't testify against themselves in court. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates an ignorance that is appalling.

Why you are continuing to deny that money from Gloria Wise went to Air America is beyond me. That is not, and has never been disptuted. Again, its ignorance and its probably willful because as a person of the left you don't want to believe it.

And then we have an apparent economist chime in:This 'great' economy we have now is an illusion

Yeah, 26 straight months of job growth, total U.S. employment of 142 million workers stands at an all-time high; 9 straight quarters of GDP growth above 3%; 5% unemployment rate, etc, its all an "illusion"

LOL...See the question is asked--Why did the City DOI instruct AAR's owners to put the "loan" amount into an escrow accout if its "between Cohen"? And what does PhilM do. Does he answer it or discuss it. No he sticks his head in the sand and then proclaims that we have to get the results of the investigation before we can discuss it.

Because it's a dishonest leading question of which you're already convinced you have the answer. Obviously the owners of AAR have a dispute with the DOI directive because they haven't fully adhered to it. It was a secret deal was between Cohen and Rosen. It's obvious that Cohen misled everyone and left others to clean up his mess. No one is even sure where the money went - most of it appears to be used by Cohen. Yet you're so keen to smear AAR and Franken for his wrong-doing.

A$$:Rove isn't a target of the investigation. His lawyer has said so publicly mulitple times, and he's testified as a witness in the Grand Jury proceeding. I know this is terribly complicated for you to understand, but people under investigation for felonies don't testify against themselves in court. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates an ignorance that is appalling.

You want me to believe the slippery words of Rove's lawyer that he is not under investigation yet is still part of that investigation? And you have absolutely no clue how the Grand Jury system work with special prosecutions. You can deny it all you like but that won't make it go away. Rove's words and actions are being investigated and he may be indicted if the prosecutor concludes that there is a case to pursue against him. And what's this BS - People under investigation do not testify against themselves in court? What?! And you accuse me of ignorance? Yeah right?!!

The money was a secret deal between Cohen and Rosen. No one is even sure where it went - it appears that most of it was used by Cohen. Yet you support the dishonesty of Maloney's smear campaign against Franken and AAR. Be honest - you want to smear Franken and AAR by associating them with Cohen's alleged wrong-doing. That's not in dispute either.

Ignorance exemplified:You want me to believe the slippery words of Rove's lawyer that he is not under investigation yet is still part of that investigation? And you have absolutely no clue how the Grand Jury system work with special prosecutions. You can deny it all you like but that won't make it go away. Rove's words and actions are being investigated and he may be indicted if the prosecutor concludes that there is a case to pursue against him. And what's this BS - People under investigation do not testify against themselves in court? What?! And you accuse me of ignorance? Yeah right?!!

--Please tell me when people take the witness stand and testify against themselves. Please, I'd love to hear this.

I don't know how the Grand Jury system works, really? Gee, I must have blacked out in law school phil. See, there is this little thing called the 5th amendment which prevents you from being compelled to testify against yourself, and that includes in front of a Grand Jury. There is no sort of distiction between "special prosecution" and not for the 5th Amendment.Can you even grasp this?

You can not be compelled to testify against yourself in any court proceeding anywhere, you moron. I guess in your mind this still makes him a "person of interest" even though he testified as a witness (a distiction you can't grasp), was given written assurances he isn't a target of the investigation, and testified - which you can't be compelled to do.

So let me get this straight, you think Rove's laywer is going to go on record and lie and jerk around a Federal Prosecutor?

As I've said, its comical to see someone as ignorant as you talk about facts and make posts like the one above.

So you claim you went to law school? Gee... standards are slipping in this country.

Don't give me this snow-job about the 5th Amendment. I know that witnesses can't be compelled to testify. Do you know if Rove took the 5th? If he didn't, his testimony as well as that of other witnesses will include scrutiny of his role in the WH leak.

I know that witnesses can't be compelled to testify. Do you know if Rove took the 5th?

--I don't even know what to say.You are so stupid its embarassing.If he took the 5th, why would he show up and testify 3 times, get written assurances he isn't a target, and sign a waiver of confidentiality for the reporters.

Yeah, I bet he took the 5th. You don't seem to understand this concept: He testified as a witness

His testimony was deemed valuable as a witness.

Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?

Really, you need to just stop, you are doing nothing but making yourself look more & more foolish.

Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?

Now I'm certain your delusional if you're comparing Rove to an innocent bystander. Again, more dishonesty, smear, and selective argument. (I must admit you've certainly learnt Maloney's trade well.) You try to slip past the issue with fine semantic distinctions (lawyers being what they are) but everyone who has testified to the Grand Jury in the special prosecution are witnesses.

All your twisting and sleight of hand around Rove being only a witness with signed assurances whose testimony is only merely valuable doesn't alter one thing. The special prosecutor will be scrutinizing Rove's role in this matter by examining his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, and may therefore conclude that there is case to bring an indictment against Rove (and/or others) for his/their role in the WH leak.

The desperate hope by Tom C. that somehow Al Franken will be found to have done something wrong in this whole affair is made that much more pathetic by Brian Maloney doing his best to encourage him in this belief.

It's hard for me to understand how a second rate comedian like Al Franken has managed to get under the collective skin of the right to such a point of irritation.

All your twisting and sleight of hand around Rove being only a witness with signed assurances whose testimony is only merely valuable doesn't alter one thing. The special prosecutor will be scrutinizing Rove's role in this matter by examining his testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, and may therefore conclude that there is case to bring an indictment against Rove (and/or others) for his/their role in the WH leak.

-Um, moron, except for the fact that he has written assurances he isn't being investigated. Therefore, how are you going to bring and indictment against someone you aren't investigating?

You really have no clue about the subject matter. Your wish that his "testimony is being examined" for a possible indictment against himself - which has has assurances was not the case - is laughable.

Air America is crashing and burning and all these idiots can do is to go into denial. If they had any working neurons left they'd probably start their own blog or internet radio station, get their message out, but clearly that's not an option.

-Um, moron, except for the fact that he has written assurances he isn't being investigated. Therefore, how are you going to bring and indictment against someone you aren't investigating?

You really have no clue about the subject matter. Your wish that his "testimony is being examined" for a possible indictment against himself - which has has assurances was not the case - is laughable.

Again, you are an ignorant moron.

And you're a thieving little bitch. (I thought I would get the name calling out of the way up front).

Again you try to slip by with selective argument. So Rove has written assurances that he is not being investigated. And you're telling me that those assurances give him protection against indictment!! I don't think so A$$man. Your continued efforts to dodge the point are now getting desperate.

Then there's your credibility issue. Why would anyone give any weight to your statements when you plagiarize other people's work?

-Um, moron, I didn't "compare" Rove to an "innocent bystander", I compared the circumstances around a case. Adults can make these distinctions. You as an uninformed liberal, obviously can not.

Uh-uh. No sale. I guess it must be difficult to keep track of all the misleading statements you make. But it is significant that you backtracked on your portrait of Rove as innocent bystander.

Please name the "dishonesty" I wrote.

Ahhh... your dishonesty...Well, everyone on this blog now knows that your a thieving plagiarist, don't they? And your absolute stupidity for thinking you wouldn't get caught. But you were caught and exposed as the fraud you are. Law school? Yeah right!

So Rove has written assurances that he is not being investigated. And you're telling me that those assurances give him protection against indictment!!

I put that statement in bold so everyone can read it clearly.You are so stupid you don't even see the contradiction.I'll just leave it at that.

But it is significant that you backtracked on your portrait of Rove as innocent bystander.

Same as above. Note that I never said nor "portrayed" Rove as an "innocent bystander" I said he was there testifying as a witness.Your appalling ignorance prevents you from grasping an analogy.

Its worth noting that you have been asked 5 direct questions and answered none of them. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Well, everyone on this blog now knows that your a thieving plagiarist, don't they?

Yeah, not quite. Because you are an ignorant buffoon, as you continue to demonstrate, you of course asked for information on a subject of which you have zero knowledge. I provided that information, and instead of being able to comprehend or discuss it, you yell "plagiarist"

Do you even know what an idictment is? Because based on your comments, one would easily conclude you do not.

Oh...I see...your little story about innocent Rove is an analogy now. Gee. I actually thought it was a just a stupid misleading story.

-If you re-read the post:His testimony was deemed valuable as a witness.

Like if you are in 7-11 and saw someone steal something then the prosecutor calls you in to testify.That means you're "under investigation" for your "role" in the theft, right?

Its quite clear it was never a "story" about anyone being "innocent" (a word I never used it's worth noting), rather was making an analogy that should be simple to understand, but quite clearly you can't.

You have no clue about the legal process and yet are writing about it. As I said, its comical and embarassing. You are putting conflicting words together and don't even know it because of your ignorance.

Did you or did you not insert someone else's published content in a post to this blog and try to pass that off as your own work?

I know this is another concept that is terribly complicated to you, but I was posting information about a topic. Facts aren't owned by anyone in particular and I was posting facts.Something you are not familiar with. In doing so I unknowingly posted a snippet from an article, however, I never claimed or intended to claim that the facts contained were mine. So the answer to your silly and baseless question is no.

But Ace... how can we take you or your opinions about legal process seriously when you have a history plagiarism?

In doing so I unknowingly posted a snippet from an article, however, I never claimed or intended to claim that the facts contained were mine. So the answer to your silly and baseless question is no.

What! Am I'm supposed to read your dustbowl of a mind to know if those words were yours or not? And the most devastating confirmation of your dishonesty and your stupidity is that I directly asked you to provide sources for that post. And what did you do? You tried to hide.

I'm sorry Ace. You've been caught. The law school has no choice but to expel you.

Hey phil, why don't you again repeat that when you have been assured you're not being investigated by a convening grand jury, how said grand jury often turns around and indicts you.Stuff like that makes us all take your silly posts seriously.

I'm not posting "opinions" about the legal process, I'm posting facts.You can't see the difference because it is you who is posting ignorant opinions, and what you want to happen. Nothing more.

Come on A$$Man... give it up. You're punting when the game is over and the crowd has gone home long ago. You've been caught plain as day stealing other people's work and lying about it. Rove and Maloney would be proud.